prove like the Sin of Witch-craft but the latter will be better accepted than Sacrifice because in that you only offer up a beast to God but in this you Sacrifice your Passions you slay them and offer them up to Gods service Remember Error seldom goes in Company with Obedience and that none are so likely to find the way to Eternal happiness in the end as they who follow the Conduct of their Superiors from the beginning not with Eye service as Men pleasers but in singleness of Heart Fearing God and the King and whatsoever you do do it heartily as unto the Lord and not unto us Men And the Lord give you understanding in all things The Speech being ended the Lords adjourned till the Afternoon to the Common Room of the College FRIDAY Afternoon AT which time the Court being sat Dr. Hough in behalf of himself and the Fellows demanded a Copy of their Lordships Commission which was denyed him and the Court ordered to proceed and then admonished the Fellows to produce the Registery of the College Affairs and also to give an account of what Leases had been Lett for two Years last past together with the Benefactions given to the College and likewise ordered them to bring in the Buttry Book to Morrow Morning to which time they adjourned §. 3. SATVRDAY Morning October 22d 1687. DR Hough was called in and it appearing to their Lordships that his Election to the Presidents place was made null and void by a Sentence given by the Lords Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes and that he the said Dr. Hough had legal notice of the same but notwithstanding the said Sentence he had and did still refuse to submit thereunto The Court ordered him forthwith peaceably to depart the College and deliver up the Keys of the Lodgings and struck his Name out of the Buttry-Book and having so done declared to the Fellows that he was Actually Expelled and admonished them not to own him as their President Then the Court askt the Fellows whether they would amdit the Bishop of Oxon their President according to the Kings Mandate but all of them refused except Mr. Charnock but said they would not oppose it Then adjourned till the Afternoon SATVRDAY Afternoon DR Hough came into the Court and made his protestation against the proceedings and appealed from the same as Illegal Unjust and Null as he asserts Whereupon there was a Tumultuous Hum or Acclamation made by the by-standers which gave the Court some disturbance in so much that they thought fit to bind over Dr. Hough in 1000 l. and two Sureties in 500 l. each to appear at the Kings Bench and again admonished Dr. Hough to quit the College which he accordingly did that Night Then adjourned to Tuesday Morning Thus far out of the Register But because the Paper sent with the Letter to the Earl of Sunderland is more full in several particulars I shall Insert it after the following Letter together with such Additions as the Bishop of Chesters own Journals afford me §. 4. The Lords Commissioners sent the Following Letter to my Lord President Dated 22d October 1687. MY LORD BY His Majesties Messenger See the Answer to this after the Programma §. 6. we have sent your Lordship a particular account of our proceedings here to which we humbly refer in which your Lordship will perceive the Temper of that Society My Lord we hope your Lordship will easily believe that we are not unwilling to do any thing which may vindicate the Kings Honor and Authority but we humbly desire to be well advised by your Lordship in the Methods of it for we are now a little at a stop by reason of the Bishop of Oxon's not appearing in Person having no Power as we humbly conceive either by the Kings Mandate or by our Commission to Admit him by Proxy His Majesties Letter Mandatory for the same being directed to the College who all but two or three do as yet refuse it We therefore humbly Pray your Lordship to dispatch His Majesties Mandate directed to Us to Admit the Bishop or his Proxy or that you would please to give us some other Directions such as your Lordship in your Great Wisdom shall Judge more expedient We do crave leave also to Intimate to your Lordship that it is our humble Opinion that We cannot proceed any further then Expulsion against Dr. Hough which your Lordship will find already done according to the Power we have by the Commission and we humbly Pray your Lordships Pardon and further Commands which shall be readily obeyed by His Majesties most Dutiful Subjects and Your Lordships most humble Servants Tho. Cestriensis R. Wright Tho. Jenner My Lord since the Writing of this Letter We have reason to believe we shall have an entire submission from the College on Tuesday next for Dr. Hough since his Expulsion hath left the College and taken Lodgings in the Town §. 4. The account sent by the Lords Commissioners of their proceedings till Saturday night Octob. 22. Oxford the 22d Octob. 1687. HIs Majesties Commissioners for Visiting the College of St. Mary Magdalen in Oxford Note that what is conteined betwixt these is what is in the Bishop of Chesters and Dr. Thâ—mas Smiâ—hs Diary and not in the Account sent by the Lords Commissioners Friday Afternoon being Yesterday viz. Thursday the 20th of October come at the time appointed viz. Friday Octob. 21. for the President Fellows and Schollars thereof to appear their Lordships took upon them the Execution thereof My Lord Bishop of Chester made a Speech to them upon the occasion of the Visitation and after an adjournment of the same to the Afternoon there then appeared Dr. Hough and several of the Fellows and most of the Schollars and Officers of the College Dr. Hough objected to the shortness of the time from the notice of the Visitation and prayed a Copy of the Commission and time to consider of it which was over ruled by the Court saying that if he and they could take any advantage from the Commission he hoped the King and their Lordships did not intend to bar them of it And in his own Name and the greatest part of the Fellows said that he submitted to the Visitation so far as was consistent with the Laws of the Land and the Statutes of the College and no further and that he could suffer no alteration of the Statutes neither by the King nor any other Person for which he had taken an Oath from which he could not swerve and thereupon Quoted the Statutes confirmed by King Henry the Sixth and their Oath that they should submit to no Alteration made by any Authority The Oxford Relation saith that my Lord Chief Justice answered you cannot Imagin that we Act contrary to the Laws of the Land and as to the Statutes the King has dispensed with them Do you think we come here to Act against Law Then the Sentence given the 22d Day of June 1687.
others quâ Legate as appears in the Decretals where (d) De Officio Legati cap. 1. Alexander the Third resolves that the Arch-Bishop could not hear Jure Metropolitico matters Episcopal that came not to him per Appellationem that is by a Legal way but Jure Legationis he might such as were brought unto him only per quaerimoniam §. 7. The Style of Legates a Latare when first used ☞ The Name of Legatus a Latere is first found in our Historians to be given to Johannes (e) Hoveden Anno 1189.177 a. 10. Anagninus Cardinalis Anno 1189 and altho' the power of these Legates was great yet it is manifest that what they did was only so far as they had the Kings permission so that in some respects it may be said whatever they did in Visitations and other matters was by the Kings Authority and sufferance for which purpose we have that Memorable Letter (a) Vita Hen. Chichelsey ab Ant. Duck Edit 1617. p. 79. from Henry Chichelsey to King Henry the Fifth which I shall give in the words it was Writ in Be Inspection of Laws and Chronicles The Legatines power by our Kings permission was exercised in most Cases was there no Legate a Latere sent into no Lond and especially into your Reagm of Yngland witoute great and notable cause And that when thei came after thei had done her Legacie abiden but litul wyle not over a yer c. And yet evir that was tretyd with or he cam into the Lond whon he should have exercise of his power and how mych shold be put in Execution an a venture after he had bee reseyved he whold have used it too largely to great oppression of your peple A further proof that Legates here could do nothing contrary to the Laws and Customs of the Land appears in this particular I shall now recite ☞ Henry Beaufort the Rich Bishop of Winchester The first Cardinal that was a Privy Councellor who was Cardinal of St. Eusebius Son of John a Gaunt and so of the Kings Blood and was employed by Martin the Fifth as General against the Bohemians and to that end Erected his Cross Anno 1429. 8 H. 6. was sent Legate into England and was made one of the Kings Privy Council and is noted to be the first that of that Order was so Admitted Yet we find that he was to (b) Râ—t parlâ—â— 8 H. 6. N. 17. His protestation to absent himself when matters of difference betwixt the King and Pope were debnted make a protestation that as often as any matter cause or business did concern the King his Kingdom or Dominions on the one part and the Apostolic See on the other which was to be Communed and Treated of in the Kings Council the Cardinal should absent himself and no ways be present at the Communication of the same It further appears how Legates Executed by the Kings Allowance or Connivance the powers given them by the Pope because if they did otherwise no person being the Kings Subject was so great but he was forced to gain his pardon for the Offence if he Committed any Hence we find that even this (a) Rot. Parl. 10 H. 6. N. 16. He Petitions for pardon if he had done any thing against the Laws being the Kings Subject great Cardinal caused a Petition to be Exhibited in Parliament That he the said Cardinal nor none other should be pursued vexed impleaded or grieved by the King his Heirs or Successors nor by any other person for cause of any provision or offence or Misprision done by the said Cardinal against any Statute of provisions or per cause of any Exemption Receipt acceptation admission or execution of any Bulls Papal to him in any manner By all this I hope the Ingenuous Reader will sind The Inference hence that what the Popes Legats did in Visitation or otherwise was by the Kings superadded Authority that what Visitations were made of the University of Oxford by the Popes Legats whereof I shall give several Instances in the sollowing Section doth no ways Infer that thereby the Kings power of Visiting was exauctorated but that whatever they did was in subordination to the Kings pleasure or as allowed by his Laws §. 8. Concerning the Arch-Bishop or Bishops Visitations The other Visitors of the University were either the Arch-Bishops of Canterbury as Metropolitans or the Bishops of Lincoln as Dioecesans or the Local Visitors I shall now endeavor to prove that whatever they did in Visitation as well as other External Regiment was by order allowance or connivance of the Kings of England so that though I shall here after produce their Visitations yet it will appear that the Kings Supreme Authority was thereby no ways prejudiced I need not here enter into the claims our Ancient Kings made to the Investitures of Bishops having touched it before nor how for their Baronies Homage is required of them It is most manifest that our Kings have Interposed their Authority even in allowing or dis-allowing of their persons This is clear by the Speech of Wolstan (a) Ailred de Miraculis Edw. Col. 406.37 Here we may note that the Alteration was by agreement at the Confessors Tomb Bishops allowed by the King. that he had compelled him to take the Pastoral Staff. So King Edward the Third wrote to Pope Clement the Sixth that his Progenitors long since upon Vacancies by their Kingly Right conferred the Cathedral Churches freely on fit persons and afterwards at the Instance of the See of Rome under certain Forms and Conditions granted that Elections should be in the said Churches by their Chapters §. 9. I need not insist upon the Kings of England seizing the Temporalities of Bishops into their hands and so Suspending them a Beneficio for those who will take the pains to look into Mr. Pryns Historical Collections will find many Instances thereof ☞ The Statutes of Provisions the complaints against the Popes Provisions in Mat. (b) Anno 1240. fol. 532.43 fol. 549.18.22 Anno 1246. fol. 669.9 Paris and the Parliaments of King Edward the Third and Richard the Second clear this point And when Anno 1349. the Pope wrote to the King that he would not hinder or permit these to be hindered to receive the Benefices who were by the Court of Rome by Bulls promoted The King Answered that he well would accept those Clerks so provided which were of good condition and were worthy of Promotion but others he would not If then the very admitting the persons to the Dignity and Office were in the Kings power as by the Conge d'eslire is well known it cannot be doubted but that the Exercise of their Government I speak not here of their Sacerdotal Function was according to the Kings Laws §. 10. How far the Canons were allowed in England We may therefore now consider how far the Ecclesiastical Canons were allowed by our Kings and how called his Laws ☞
generally are bred up to Divinity and the hours of Devotion Lectures in Divinity Disputations c. are mostly about Spiritual matters in Ordine ad Spiritualia and Grammar Schools being for Education Vertue and Learning are called Spiritual much more Colleges which are Founded ad Studendum Orandum and if there were none of these considerations yet it is well known that Colleges are to an Eleemosinary end and it is clear in the sense of the Law where persons are lay there may be a Spiritual end 11 H. 4.47 of which matter the curious may find more in * Keebles Reports 2d part page 166. c. Dr. Patricks Case As to the Statute of Magna Charta The Kings Prerogative is not against Magna Charta altho' it grants and confirms many Liberties and Immunities to the people yet it does not deprive the King of his Prerogative who hath the power to Create Courts at Law and give them Jurisdiction as also to Establish Courts by Commission for Regulating deceits oppressions frauds and other matters as seems best to his Royal Will which is no encroachment on our Liberties Temporal or Spiritual as is objected §. 13. The eighth objection concerning liberty of Appeals This leads me to the Eighth Objection made by the favorers of the Ejected Fellows viz. That it is contrary to the Laws of the Land that any person should be deprived of his Fellowship by the Lords Visitors without having liberty to Appeal to the King in his Courts of Justice See pa. 70. here as Dr. Hough words it in his Protestation against the Illegality and Inustice of the Lords Visitors Sentence against him See here pa. 116. and Dr. Fairfax in his Protestation in the same words with the Addition as the Laws Statutes and Ordinances of this Realm will permit in that behalf whose Case differed from Dr. Houghs in that particular that Dr. Fairfax had long enjoyed his Fellowship and was Ejected for his dis-obedience to the Kings Mandate whereas it was disputable whether Dr. Hough was lawfully Elected President But in one particular they alleged that their Cases were alike in that they might have remedy against all such dis-possession of Headship's or Fellowship's in the Kings Courts where relief in all Cases of Property and Free-hold ought to be had ☞ In Crroboration of this Dr. Coveneys Case urged they bring the Instance of Dr. Coveney as in the last Objection is urged that he being deprived by the Local Visitor and Appealing to the Queen by the advice of all the Judges it was held that the Queen by her Authority as Supreme Visitor could not medle in it but he must bring his Action at Westminster Hall because deprivation was a cause merely Temporal §. 14. The Answer In Answer to this First It is apparent in matter of Fact by what I have before from Records made clear that Heads of Colleges Chap. 5. sect 1. §. 10. sect 2. per totum sect 3. §. 3. Fellows c. have been Expelled and deprived by Commissioners for Visitation as appears in the places quoted in the Margent Secondly Coke Instit 4. fol. 339.340 341. Stephen Gardiners Case It is owned that it is not only an usual practice of the Crown to grant Commissions ad revidendum the former proceedings before the proper Judges but likewise the Kings have often granted Commissions with a Clause of Appellatione remota which is a definitive conclusive Sentence from which no Appeals lies ☞ For clearing the point more fully we may consider that the Statute 25 H. 8. C. 19. grants an Appeal from any of the Arch-Bishops Courts to the King in Chancery Appeals according to the Statute 25 H. 8. c. 19. where the King may by Commission Delegate others to determin that Appeal according to the direction of that Act but where Sentence is given by Commissioners Delegated by the Prince and not in any Bishops Court as by Visitation pursuant to the Statute 1 Eliz. c. 2. there Appeals from such a Sentence is not within the Statute of 25 H. 8. c. 19. Yet the King may grant a new Commission to revise the former Sentence Likewise there may be an Appeal to the King in person from all Courts Erected by his Prerogative Appeals to the King in person as from the High Court of Chancery Coke 4. Instit fol. 340. and it is upon Record by Commission 14 Jac. 1. as the words are 14 Jac. 1. par 6. n. 25. that it appertaineth to our princely care and office only to be Judge over all our Judges the meaning whereof can be no other than that from the Judges Sentence and Decrees there may be an Appeal to the King in person 2 Andersons Reports fol. 163. So by the Commission granted by the King to the Commissioners to Visit St. Mary Magdalen College in Oxford the Commissioners were a Court then only for that purpose created by the King Goodmans Case 4. Instit 340. and from any Sentence or Decree pronounced by them the Fellows might Appeal to the King in person but could not Appeal to any Court in Westminster Hall so that the Appeal to the King in Chancery is in such cases as are particularly limited in the Statute of matters in sits in the Courts of Bishops Rolls Abridgment part 2. fol. 233. as Judge Rolls observes who likewise affirms that if a suit be by a Commission General of the King no Appeal can be to the King in Chancery by the words of the Statute for in such Appeals to the King it must be General as he is Supreme Head of all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within the Realm and this must be by a Bill Signed by the King after which the King may grant a Commission to Delegates to hear it So that the case of Dr. Coveney is not rightly stated in the Allegation of those of Magdalen College The case of Dr. Coveney not rightly stated that because Dr. Coveney being deprived by the Bishop of Winchester Local Visitor and Appealing to the Queen it was adjudged that the Appeal did not lye because deprivation was merely Temporal and Tryable at Common Law Dyer's Reports fol. 209. for my Lord Dyer only shews that according to the Statutes of 24 and 25 H. 8. the Appeal was to be from a Sentence in the Arch-Bishops Court to the King in Chancery but Dr. Coveneys deprivation was not by any Sentence in the Arch-Bishops Court and consequently not within the Statutes to bring his Appeal to the Queen in Chancery Now the Artifice used by the favorers of the Fellows is The Artifice used by those of St. Mary Magdalen College in citing this case that they make Dr. Coveney to Appeal to the Queen without mentioning in Chancery and so it was not brought before the Queen as Supreme Visitor and so was not within the Statute either way since the deprivation was by the Local Visitor only and in that case his
Against Dr. Hough's Election and for the removing him from the Office of President of the College was Read and he was asked whether he knew of it being given against him He replyed he had notice of it but said he was no party to it and so was advised it did not any wise concern him The Sentence likewise against Dr. Aldworth and Dr. Fairfax for suspending them was Read and the Petition of Dr. Aldworth Dr. Fairfax and others delivered to my Lord President on the Tenth of April last being about Five Days before their Election of Dr. Hough was also Read to them to which was replyed that they had no * It was Answer sufficient to have obliged them not to have proceeded to Election till they had particularly made out their Information against Mr. Farmer Answer from my Lord President but that the King expected to be obeyed and they receiving no other Mandate than that for Admitting Mr. Farmer they proceeded to Elect Mr. Hough Then after their Lordships orders to them to bring in some Books viz. The Register and other Papers relating to the Revenues and Government of their College which the Doctor promised they should have next Morning they adjourned to Eight of the Clock this Morning SATVRDAY Octob. 22d VVHo being met and such Books brought in Dr. Hough being called in The words of the Account are their Lordships proceeded and proposed these two Questions to Dr. Hough whether he was willing c. the Bishop of Chester told him Doctor here is a Sentence under Seal before us of the Kings Commissioners for Visiting the Universities by which the Election to the Presidentship of Magdalen College is declared Null and Void which you heard Yesterday Read and of which you Confess your self to have Legal notice before by being fixed upon the Doors This Sentence and the Authority by which it was passed you have contemned and in contempt thereof have kept Possession of the Lodgings and the Office of President to this day to the great contempt and dishonor of the King and his Authority Are you yet willing upon better and second thoughts to submit to the Sentence passed by their Lordships against you or not To which he Answered that the Decree of the Commissioners is a perfect Nullity from beginning to End as to what relates to him he having never been Cited nor ever appeared before them either in his Person or Proxy Besides his Cause it self was never before them Their Lordships never enquiring or asking one question concerning the Legality or Statutableness of the Election These Arguments will particularly be answered for which reason he is informed that That Decree was of no validity against him according to the Methods of the Civil Laws but if it had he was possessed of a Freehold according to the Laws of England and Statutes of the Society having been Elected as Unanimously and with as much Formality as any of his Predecessors Presidents of the said College and afterwards Admitted by the Bishop of Winchester their Visitor as the Statutes of the College required and therefore he could not submit to that Sentence because he thought he could not be deprived of his Freehold but by Course of Law in Westminster-Hall or by being some way Incapacitated according to the Founders Statutes which are Confirmed by King James the First Second Question put to Dr. Hough was whether he would deliver up the Keys and Lodgings as by a Clause in the Statutes of Admission he is tyed to do to the use of the President who hath the Kings Letters Mandatory to be Admitted into that Office. To which he Answered that there is not neither can there be any President whilst he Lives and obeys the Laws of the Land and the Statutes of the place and therefore doth not think it reasonable to give up his Right nor the Keys and his Lodgings now demanded of him He takes the Bishop of Winchester to be his Ordinary Visitor and yet he would deny him the Keys he takes the King to be his Extraordinary Visitor as he believes but it had been controverted whether the King had Power to Visit as in Coveny's Case 4 o. Eliz. and looked upon their Lordships Commanding it to be a requiring him to deliver up his Office. He said he had appeared before their Lordships as Judges and that he now Addressed himself to them as Men of Honor and Gentlemen and did beseech them to represent him as Dutiful to His Majesty to the last degree as he always will be where his Conscience permits to the last Moment of his Life and when he is Dispossest here he hopes they will intercede that he may no longer lie under His Majesties displeasure or be frowned upon by his Prince which would be the greatest affliction that could befall him in this World. Then their Lordships admonish'd him three times to depart peaceably from the Presidents Lodgings and to Act no more as President or pretended President of the College in Contempt of the King and his Authority which he refusing to do Mr. Lee Proctor to the Lords accused his Contumacy and prayed the Judgment of the Court The words of the Account are then the Lords proceeded to give Judgment against him viz. That he forth with c. which was thus pronounced The Lords Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes and for Visiting the Universities have Decreed the Presidents place of this College to be Null and Void Therefore we by the Authority to us committed do Order and Command you Dr. Hough forthwith to quit all pretensions to the said Office upon which they Ordered his Name to be struck out of the Buttry-Book which was accordingly done and admonished the Fellows and other Members of the Society no longer to own him as their President Then the Kings Mandate for Admitting the Bishop of Oxford was Read See for this sect 2. § 3. and they were then Ordered to withdraw and being soon after called in again the Question was put to the Fellows singly one by one whether they would Admit the Bishop of Oxford their President according to the Kings Mandate Dr. Pudsey said he would submit to the King and would be by but could not Act being Burser Dr. Thomas Smith replyed From Dr. Smiths Diary See his other Answer §. 10. My Lords Commissioners if it be the Kings pleasure to make the Bishop of Oxford President of this College and your Lordships Acting by that Authority have declared and made him such I do because I must submit I make no opposition Mr. Charnock said he was ready to obey the Kings Mandate all the rest of the Fellows refused to receive him as President as being against their Statutes and Oaths and that which would make them guilty of Perjury All whose Verbal Answers were taken in Writing by the Lords Commissioners and their Lordships after some time said if you think we have not taken the Answer right put them in Writing
the particular Members of this Society which we cannot get any the least Information of and have sufficient Power to redress them and to punish the Delinquents for the Irregularities Committed by the Statutes of the same and having brought the Fellows to the Submission to his Admission and had notice from your Lordship of the Kings Gracious pleasure This Graciousness of the King is to be observed that no punishment should be inflicted upon them by us upon the account of their former disobedience we hope we have hitherto obeyed His Majesties Command and that if he have no further pleasure to signifie to us we may have his Gracious leave to return to attend his Service at London We crave leave further to intimate to His Majesty that the Vice-Chancellor and Heads of Houses pay great respect to this Commission as will in part appear by the Inclosed Paper of the Programma See the Programma before cap. 2. sect 1. §. 5. And so begging your Lordships favourable Representation of our Duty and Service to His Majesty we rest MY LORD Your Lordships most obedient and humble Servants Tho. Cestriensis R. Wright Tho. Jenner With this Letter was sent the following account which in several particulars I have only given the abridgment of as being less necessary to the main business §. 16. The Account the Fellows gave in concerning their Hospitality c. Wednesday the 26th October 1687. THe Fellows of the College brought in an Account of their Gifts towards Hospitality Here may be noted that the Lands of this Hospital were alienated and then the Court adjourned till Thursday Morning the abridgment of the Account is this In the time of King Henry the Sixth the Hospital of St. John was dissolved and the Lands thereunto belonging were purchased by William Wainfleet then Bishop of Winton and in the place or scite of that Hospital he Built Magdalen College He himself left no Composition Injunction Statute Order or Proviso for the Maintenance of any Poor People or Strangers that ever we could find in any writing or Record whatsoever Then they relate some small Gift of John Claimond the third President who left 3 l. per Annum whereof 2 l. 10 s. is to be distributed amongst the Fellows and Scholars on the first Munday in Lent Yearly and 10 s. thereof for the repairing of four Beds and Bedsteads which he placed in a Room over the Vault of the old Chappel but he made no provision they find of Victuals or Maintenance of those who were allowed to Lodge there which at the most were to be but four at a time But in the time of the Rebellion the said Chappel with the Vault was made no other use of but to lay Fuel in whereupon at the Restauration the Visitor directed that it should be Converted into Chambers for the use of the Fellows and Demys Two other of their Benefactors Ingledue and Preston ordered 20 d. at a time to be disposed of on fourteen Feasts to the poor the whole amounting to 1 l. 3 s. which is accordingly distributed yearly by the Bursers Preston gave 6 s. per Annum for the use of two or three poor Lancashire Scholars which is yearly distributed by the President so that all the Mony which we are obliged to bestow on Charitable uses amounts to but 2 l. 3 s. 4 d. per Annum besides Perrots Composition which is faithfully performed Notwithstanding which 4 s. is given yearly to the Castle for Straw for the Prisoners and we allow 8 s. yearly to the Alms-Men of Bartholomews we allow 6 l. 6 s. 8 d. yearly to the poor of Bridewell and 20 l. per Annum to the President for the entertainment of Strangers and Forreigners and there is allowed every Meal at the Bursers Table a Commons for the Entertainment of Strangers and the Bursers have Power to add thereunto as they see occasion and besides what is constantly allowed as abovesaid there is a considerable Sum disposed of yearly by the President and Thirteen Senior Fellows at the conclusion of the Accounts and other times to Indigent Persons Strangers and Travelors and chiefly to such as are in great want but ashamed to make their necessities so public as to desire Alms of their respective Parishes amounting to above 50 l. per Annum And if we might not be thought to boast of our Charity we could instance in considerable Sums given to the Fire of London Northampton and Southwark and other places and to the French Protestants to one of which we allow at present 6 l. yearly whence it appears that we Expend out of the College Stock near 100 l. per Annum in Charitable uses Alex. Pudsey Tho. Smith Tho. Bayley Main Hammond Jo. Rogers Rob. Almont Fran. Bagshaw Hen. Holden Hen. Dobson Geo. Fulham Charles Penniston Willi. Craddock Tho. Stafford Charles Hawley John Bayley John Harwar John Davys Tho. Bateman Geo. Hunt. Jo. Gilman Rob. Charnock Steph. Weelks §. 17. Dr. Thomas Smiths Paper about the College Charity c. Dr. Thomas Smith gave in the following Paper at the same time AS to your Lordships Question proposed whether we have applyed the Revenue of any Land or other Estate given for Hospitality to private uses we cannot for want of time give your Lordships that satisfaction and full Accompt which we desire and shall do hereafter when we shall look over the Evidences and the Estate of the College of which we are but the Usu-fructuaries and other Munuments locked up in the Tower. As to our Hospitality in General the Bursers Table is the place where not only our Tenants but Strangers according to their Quality are Entertained there being a dayly Allowance made by the College for that purpose which when scanty and not sufficient for a suitable Entertainment it is left in many Cases to the discretion of the Bursers to add what they shall Judge fit and becoming But besides this it is our constant Practice and Custom at the end of the Year to give Sums of Mony away to the poor which are greater or less according to the Surplusage of our Corn Rents that year Thirdly The Bursers are Impowered to give Mony away to the poor upon the greater and more solemn Festivals of the year Fourthly Oftentimes upon great Emergencies such as were the Brief for the Re-edifying the Town of Northampton for the Rebuilding the Cathedral of St. Pauls London for the relief of the French Protestants besides other Briefs for Fires and for Redemption of Captives and the like we give considerable Sums of Mony as well out of the public Stock as out of our private Purses As for turning the remaining part of the Hospital of St. John about twenty Years since into Lodging Chambers which were very much wanting for the Fellows that alteration was not made without consulting the Bishop of Winton our Local Visitor and without having obtained his Lordships consent There having been no use as we could ever
uniting yet they might abuse the Power to the detriment of the Common-weal therefore in the Digests we find the Law thus (d) Lege neque Societas i. f. quod cujuscum que Vniversitatis neque Societas neque Collegium neque hujusmodi Corpus passim omnibus habere conceditur nam legibus Senatus-consultis principalibus constitutionibus eares coercetur Agreeable to which I find in the Letter from King Edward to the Pope in behalf of the University that it enjoys (e) In Regia Benevolentia recumbit speciali Rot. Rom. 11. E. 2. M. 14. Intus it's Privileges by special Royal Benevolence By the Constitution of our Laws this Right as all Jurisdiction and Franchises are is Lodged in the Crown and thence only derived So (a) Rex habet omnia Jura in manu suâe quae ad Coronam ad Laitatem pertinent potestatem Regni Gubernaculum Habet etiam Justitiam Judicium quae sunt Jurisdictiones habet etiam ea quae ad pacem pertinent Ea quae dicuntur privilegia licet pertinent ad Coronam possunt ad privatas personas transferri sed de gratia ipsius Regis speciali Bracton upon the Question quis concedere potest libertates quibus qualiter referuntur thus resolves it The King saith he hath all the Rights in his own Hands which appertain to the Crown and his Lay-Power and the Government of the Kingdom He hath also Justice and Judgment which are Jurisdictions and those things which appeartain to Peace He further observes that those things which are called Privileges tho' they appertain to the Crown may be transferred to private persons but of the special Grace only of the King. ☞ All the Law Books Unanimously agree that none can make Corporations but the (b) 49 E. 3.4.49 Ass 8. King and such Power cannot be prescribed for it inherent in the Crown Therefore Sir Edward (c) Co. 10. Rep. f. 33. b. Coke calls them Creatures of the Crown The Nature of some (d) Atturny Generals Argument for the Quo Warranto Ms. p. 9. Corporations is to be Constituted by the King alone as the Dean and Chapters Majors and Commonality some have been by the Popes alone and some mixt by the King for the Temporal Possession by the Pope for their Spirituality However the King is still the Donor Fountain and Spring from whence these and all other Liberties flow §. 3. Things requisite to a Corporation My (c) Suttons Hosp fol. 29. Lord Coke saith there are Four things that are of the Essence of a Corporation First a Legal Authority which he saith is Four ways First By Common Law as by the King alone which therefore is said to be by Common Law as the most known and regular way Secondly By Authority of Parliament Thirdly by the Kings Charter Fourthly By prescription which in effect are all by the King for what is by Act of Parliament is certainly so and what is by prescription is presumed to have obtained a Grant from the Crown which in process of time hath been lost and so by the Tacit allowance and consent of Successive Kings acquires a Right His other Essential parts are in the Operative words of which there is no need to discourse here ☞ By the Statute of Merton (a) Id. p. 26. b. no Grant of Lands to Pious or Charitable uses are good without the Kings Licence For this purpose the Kings Grant is absolutly necessary for that it was solely in his Power to Grant and the Donor of the Lands without the King can do nothing to establish a perpetuity Without capacitating the Incorporating cannot be effected for the Inhabitants of a Village or City are single persons which are not in a Capacity to take any Lands in Succession the like is to be said of Liberties Privileges and Immunities but only to their Singular Heirs but such Inhabitants are in a Capacity to be Incorporated by the King and after such an Incorporation to have a Succession of Lands Tenements and Hereditaments §. 4. The end of Corporations ☞ The general intent and end of all Civil Incorporations allowed by the Policy of the Law (b) Atturny Generals Argument ut supra is in order to better Government subservient to the Oeconomy of the whole by such prescribed Rules as the Kings of England have been Graciously pleased to limit them by which as Emergences happened might be altered by the same Power that bestowed them ☞ Bishop Saunderson (a) Quum ex concessione principum idque ex gratia speciali corporentur istiâ—s modi Societates nec aliis gaudeant juribus privilegiis vel potestate extra ea quae vel ex diuturna temporis praescriptione vel ex chartis diplomatibusque Regiis constare potest fuisse sibi concessa De obligatione Conscientiae praelect 7. sect 28. according to his Judicious way of expressing matters saith the Sodalities Bodies Corporate or Colleges are as Members of the great Body the Kingdom or Common-wealth and are contained in it as the Inferior Orbs of the Heavens are in the Superior That these are Incorporated by the Grants of Princes of their special Grace and enjoy not any Rights Privileges or Powers besides those which by prescription of long time or from Royal Charters it appears they have had Granted to them Therefore whatever Power they have of making any Laws for their Government it is derivative and no way Primitive and is ultimately resolved into the Supreme Regal Power as it 's true Original Therefore such like Societies or their Magistrates cannot at their own Arbitrament constitue or exercise any Power in making Laws but according to the manner and measure of the faculty Indulged to them by the Prince ☞ Hence it is that whoever is the Founder of a College the King calls it upon all occasions Our College and the Members likewise in all Applications to the King say Your College for tho' the particular Founder give the Land yet as it is a College or Corporation the King is the Founder ☞ So it is (b) Patrick Case Trinit 18. Car. 2. Keble Rep. 2d St. fol. 65. vouched for Law that the King without the Ordinary may Erect Universities and this is not a Prerogative our Kings only enjoy but we find it frequently in the Grants of the Modern Roman Emperors and Kings §. 5. The Power of conferring Degrees in Universities conferred on Subjects Examples of the Emperors giving Power to Count Palatines to make Doctors in Divinity Law Physic and Philosophy which are the peculiar Degrees conferred by Universities quâ Vniversities by the Grants of Privilege from their respective Sovereigns may be found in Tho. (a) Thesi 22. c. Sagittarius cited by Mr. Selden ☞ So Rudolphus the second Emperor of Germany (b) Sacri Lateranensis Palatii Aulaeque nostrae Caesariae Imperialis Consistorii Comitu Doctores Licentiatos Baccalaureos in utreque Jure
deputed by him with power to determin the matters But these were received so sharply at Oxford that they could not exercise their Visitatorial Authority till the King sent his Breve or Writ (c) Chartophyl Civit. Oxon. to the Chancellor and Major to assist the Visitors in executing their Office by which at present things were quieted But it broke out again till by a second Visitation or Peculiar Mandate sent to the College Mr. Henry Whylefield the Provost Mr. William French Robert Lydeford and John Trevis Fellows were Expelled These by private consultation among themselves took away the Charters Books the Jewels Mony and other Goods of the College till the Chancellor and Proctors upon the Kings (a) Iussu Regio 13. R. 2. M. 40. Mandate caused them to be restored by Whitefield the Expelled to Thomas Carvel the new Provost But still all was not quiet those Expelled especially making disturbances therefore on the Seventh of February the King issued out his (b) Pat. 3 R. 2. par 2. M. 12. Letters Patents to Mr. Berton the Chancellor John Sherburn Thomas Swindon and Robert Bixy under the Great Seal to examin and determin the matters By this it appears What is to be Inferred from this that either by the Local Visitor or the Kings absolute Authority the Provost and several Fellows were Expelled That the King Commissionated some under the Broad Seal to hear and determin the matters which no doubt was by some one way and demonstrates the Kings absolute power in Expelling and by Commission determining matters in the University without other Visitations and we may note when ever the Visitations were performed by the Ordinary Visitors viz. The Arch-Bishop or Bishops it was about some things relating to their Function settled by the Canons and allowed by the Laws of the Land but still the last resort was made to the King besides his first giving leave as in many particulars is very clear §. 13. Arch-Bishop Courtneys Visitation Anno 1389. William Courtney Arch-Bishop of Canterbury Visited his Province and the Scholars were troubled (c) Walsingham Hist Angliaead Annu 1389. fol. 341. for that they had never seen nor heard such a Mandate of Visitation that both Exempted and not Exempted should be Visited Therefore the Black Monks urged their (d) These were the Black Monks of Gloucester College Exemptions and applyed themselves to the Abbots of Westminster and St. Albans who advissed them not to yield to the Arch-Bishops Visitation Wood Antiq. Oxon lib. 1. fol. 196 a. and Letters were sent from the Abbot of st Albans to the Arch-Bishop to desire him to desist to which the Arch Bishop replyed that saving the Right of his Church he would willingly do what he could for his special friend the Abbot but faid he could not any ways desist saving that Right from Visiting the Prior and Black Monks Studying in Oxford even tho' the (a) Etiamsi Rex Angliae pro praedictis Instaret King should intreat for them because they were a College and had a Prior and Chapter and lived in Common The Monk sent from St. Albans said they were not a College Non fuit ibi Collegium cum ibi morantes sigillum Commune non habent nec locus sit donatus Terr poralibus Spiritualibus c. for that they had not a Common Seal or were Endowed with Spiritualities or Temporalities and wanted many other things which were required to Constitute a College The Arch-Bishop Answered therefore he would Visit to enquire how it was with them Then the Monk reply'd if he came to Visit them he had no Jurisdiction to enquire of such things c By this appears what are of the Essence of a College and that in this Age Monks of several Orders had their Schools here â—nd yet were reckoned as Members of the Convent they were sent from rather than of any Incorporate Society of the University but only to Visit such as were not Exempt for those that were Exempt were Visitable in their proper Monasteries by the Arch-Bishop and so not to be Visited a second time To this Allegation the Arch-Bishop Answered that they were not Visited by him in their proper Monasteries for the Abbots excused them for that they were in the Schools therefore he would Visit them there And then a Monk and Lawyer who came with the Arch-Bishop willing to enlarge the Arch-Bishops Jurisdiction said that the Arch-Bishop might Visit even the Exempts (d) Exempti ibi ita sunt privilegiati quod ubicunque fuerint non sunt sub Jurisdistione alicujus Episcopi nisi Romani Pontificis vel Legati a Latere missi as long as they were in the Schools for that they were under the Jurisdiction of the Chancellor to this the Monk of St. Albans replyed that the Exempt are so privileged that wherever they were they might not be under the Jurisdiction of any Bishop unless of the Bishop of Rome or his Legate a Latere sent hither To which the Arch-Bishop said if it were so he neither could nor would molest them in any thing A while after Simon de Southerey presented himself to the Arch-Bishop in the Church of St. Fridiswyde whith all the Monks Exempt and not Exempt and the Arch-Bishop asked them if they submitted to his Visitation and it was answered that they came to obtain (a) Ad Captandam ejus Benevolentiam advenerunt his favor and the Arch Bishop told them that he excused them and never intended to burthen them so there was an end of this matter By all which it appears that the Dispute was about the privilege of Exemption But that the power of Metropolitical Visitation was allowed and that power was by the then Laws and is now derivative from the King. SECT III. Who Visited the Vniversity of Oxford after the 13th of King Richard the Seconds time to the beginning of King Henry the 8ths Reign §. 1. The King redresseth certain grievences complained of by both Universities HOw far the King Interested himself in Ordering the Affairs of the University appears in what King Richard the Second did Anno 1390. 14 Regni of which I shall give a short account The Fryers Preachers or Dominicans were complained of by both the Universities that several of them Students there declined the Examination of the University in order to the taking their Degrees and going beyond Sea obtained the Titles of Masters not without Infamy to the Brothers or Fryers and the great loss of the University Thereupon the King writes to the Prior Provincial and all the Priors in England ☞ That since the order (a) Ordo praedictus Institutus sit firmatus ad resistendum destruendum Haereses Errores contra legem divinam fidem Catholicam indies emergentes c. Claus 14. Ric. 2. M. 32. was Instituted to resist and destroy Heresies and Errors against the Divine Law and the Catholic Faith dayly springing up
and several others were Expelled as had been done in New-College And the Society of Magdalen College were so averse from the Roman Catholic Religion that not only they got neither Altar or Holy Vestments but none of the Fellows came to Mass and the very Clerks and Choristers would not perform their Offices so that the Visitors were forced to have all Holy Offices performed by their own Priests Ibid. fol. 13. b. they punished the Juniors that refused Punishments inflicted by the Visitors either with striking them out of Commons or Scourging them and one Aldworth Bachellor of Art for Contumelious Usage of Priests and coming in unseasonably to the Mass of the Exequies of King Henry the Sixth was Commanded that every Day he should be at Mass and kneeling at the South Pillar in the middle of the Church should perform his Prayers to the Example of others The same Commissioners found the President of Corpus Christi College Robert Morwent and the Senior Fellow Henry Walsh very observant Id. fol. 276. a. who brought to light the Holy Vestments Cushions Silver Vessels Candlestics and other Ornaments which they had hid in King Edward the Sixth's time and excepting John Juel after Bishop I find none left that College but from the other two besides the Fellows Ejected in Edward the Sixth's time about Eighteen or Twenty this Year and the next were removed §. 2. Cardinal Pools Visitation Anno 1556. Id. fol. 278. b. 3 4 Ph. Mar. Cardinal Pool appointed and entire Visitation of the University of Oxford and the Visitors were James Brooks Bishop of Gloucester Nicholas Ormanet of Padua in good esteem with Julius the Third Pix M. M. n. 22. and Dator to him or Marcellus the Second Henry Cole Doctor of Laws Provost of Eaton Robert Morwent Doctor in Divinity President of Corpus Christi College and Walter Wright Arch Deacon of Oxford These proceeded upon Thirty Two Questions Two Questions proposed by the Visitors First whether their Statutes were observed two of which were the most Material First Whether the Foundations Statutes and Laudable Customs of the University and of every College and Hall were observed by all and singular that were concerned and if it were answered Negatively they were required specially to express which were not observed and for what cause The Second was Second whether after the Reformation any things were used contrary to the Canons c. whether in the time of the Schism any thing was appointed or brought into use which was against the Ancient Canons or Ancient Foundations Statutes Privileges and Customs and to this if they Answered Affirmatively they were to express particularly what they were and for what cause §. 3. The Cardinal appoints Statutes The Visitors following the Example of those that Visited in King Edward the Sixths Reign purged out of all public Libraries all Books which maintained the Protestant Doctrin and those in private Libraries they burnt and either Punished or Expelled the Possessors In E. p. 38. They certified the Cardinal especially of the Defects of the University Statutes and he being Chancellor instead of Mason that laid down the Office sent a Book of Statutes to Mr. Raynolds the Vice-Chancellor and Commanded him that they might be in force till there being joyned with him some in every Faculty they might determin which were to be Antiquated and which to be retained which being so Revised had the Sanction of the Chancellor and Convocation which being strict against the Reformed drove many from the University Our Author Notes that the Lectures were less frequent in this Queens time as well as in King Edward the Sixths and fewer received Degrees which may be Imputed to the Changes made in Religion in their short Reigns but he saith the great care of the Magistrates of the Universities in this Queens Reign was to recover the profits of the Societies and to Repair their Buildings and the Schools In this Third and Fourth Year of King Philip and Queen Mary Cui Papa commisit Visitationem Reformationem Studiorum Generalium Cardinal Pool Visited the University of Cambridge as he was Legate to whom the Pope Committed the Visitation and Reformation of the Universities called General Studies This Visitation the Cardinal performed by Delegates and I find one Robert Brassy Master of Kings College urged that his House was wholly referved to the Discretion of the Bishop of Lincoln not only by the Kings Letters Patents Fox Acts and Monuments Vol. 3. p. 763.766 but also by the Grant of Confirmation of the Bishop of Rome himself under a Penalty if he should suffer any Stranger to Intermedle But the Commissioners Answered that they were fully Authorized for the Order of the matter by the Cardinal out of whose Jurisdiction no place nor person was Exempted So that tho' he persisted the next Day in his Allegation yet he and the Students submitted and were all Sworn and Examined to the Interrogatories propounded to them yet some of them Swore conditionally so as their Faith given to the College were not Impeached thereby Something like the Salvo of some Members of St. Mary Magdalen College that they would yield obedience saving the Right of Dr. Hough which was prudently denyed to be Admitted by the Lords Visitors I now pass to the Reign of Queen Elizabeth SECT III. The Visitations in Queen Elizabeths Reign §. 1. Queen Elizabeths Inhibition ANno 1559. Fol. 281. b. Queen Elizabeth intending to Visit the University of Oxford Writ to the Magistrates of the same not to Elect any heads of Houses Fellows Scholars c. forbidding them to proceed to the Election of any President Fellow or Scholar or of any Officer of the University and forbid all Alienations or Changes of Possessions and all other things to be done by the University except what was necessary for the Cultivating their Lands till the Visitation and this she did because some were so forward to begin a Restoring things to the condition they were in in King Edward the Sixth's time before her Order By which the Queens Authority and Circumspection are clearly discovered §. 2. Queen Elizabeth appoints Visitors After some few Months she appointed her Visitors Wood lib. 1. fol. 282. viz. Richard Cox Bishop of Ely John Williams Baron of Thame but he Died in October John Mason Kt. sometimes Fellow of All-Souls and several Years after Chancellor Thomas Benger Kt. William Kingsmyll Esq John Warner Custos of All-Souls College Walter Wright Doctor of Laws Arch-Deacon of Oxford John Watson Master of Arts Chancellor of St. Pauls London Robert Benger Esq c. to whom she Commands they should Act with all Humanity and abstain from all Roughness These Visitors coming to Oxford cast out of the Chappels of the Colleges and Parish Churches all things that related to Superstitious Worship as it was Styled that is the use of the Roman Worship recalled those that were banished or put out
more plausibly In the first place it is urged that no Commission can be granted under the Broad Seal to Visitors to place and dis-place Members of Colleges but so as they must proceed according to Legal discretion viz. by the Laws and Statutes of the Land and Local Statutes of the Colleges By this Allegation they would Insinuate that the Lords Visitors did not proceed according to such Laws and Statutes nor could proceed summarily as in the latter part of the Objection they Insinuate To this I reply The Kings Prerogative a part of the Law of the land See chap. 4. §. 1. 2. here that the Kings Prerogative in such Cases is to be taken and accepted as a Fundamental of the Laws of the Land and I hope I have sufficiently cleared the continued use of the Kings of Englands exercising this power in granting Commissions to Visit the Universities and particular Colleges c. Amongst the Patents 26 E. 3. There is a Commission directed to several Commissioners to Visit St. Mary Magdalen College in Rippon which by the Foundation of that College was under the Visitation of the Arch-Bishop of York and to enquire of the several mis-carriages of the respective Members and whether they consumed or wasted any of the Lands or Goods of that College and to return the same to the King who would take care therein So in the Parliament Rolls (a) Rot. Parl. 40 E. 3. n. 12. the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge complained in Parliament of the Fryers Mendicants of both the said Universities how Injurious they were to the Ancient Immunities of the Universities and how faulty and offensive they were to them and it was declared and resolved in Parliament that the King had sole power to redress those Controversies at his Will and Pleasure In the Plea (a) Placit 15 E. 2. n. 10. Rolls 15 Ed. 2. It is declared that the King hath an absolute power to punish contempts and the offences against him as Supreme Ordinary without proceeding in the Common and usual Course of Judicial proceedings ☞ Conformable to this King Henry the 8th granted his Commission for the Visitation of Monasteries and dis-placing several Monks and other Regulars for their mis-carriages as the Inquisitive Reader may find in Dr. Burnets History of the Reformation and that by his Sovereign and Supreme Authority without Act of Parliament So King Edward (b) Rot. Pat. 3 E. 6. 1 part the 6th Commissioned Cranmer Ridley and others to proceed de plano in a summary way against Bonner by the Examination of Witnesses against him and so to Imprison Suspend or Deprive him as they saw cause in pursuance of which Commission they Deprived him of his Bishopric So Queen Mary (c) Rot. Pat. 1 Mariae part 7. granted Commission to the then Bishop of Winchester and others to Impower them to proceed in a summary way to the Deprivation of the then Arch-Bishop of York and other Bishops So Queen Elizabeth (d) Pat. 24 June 1 Regni granted Commission to the Earls of Derby and Northumberland and others to Visit all the Clergy in the North to place and displace them as they saw cause §. 11. Inferences from the foregoing Records By all which Authorities See chap. 4.5 6 and 7. here the Opinion of Parliaments the Antiquities of Presidents and frequent Instances in later days which I have abundantly produced in the foregoing Chapters I hope I have convincingly cleared that the King in all Ages by his Prerogative hath Regulated and Reformed Universities and Colleges punished their offences placed and dis-placed their Members without anything of the Ceremony of Westminster Hall and have been advised by their Judges and Learned Council that it was their Prerogative to proceed by their Commissioners Delegated by them in a summary way to the Suspension and Deprivation of the Bishops and Clergy nor can it be denyed but the Bishops of England have great Free-holds Temporalities and Honorable Baronages to lose by such Deprivations and such were more considerable in the Eye and esteem of the Law than the Exhibitions Headships or Fellowships of any College ☞ Hence it may be noted The Kings of England exercising the power of supension and deprivation by Commissioners upon Bishops Abbots Priors c. may well do it on Members of Colleges that since our Kings have exercised such a power over Monasteries Colleges purely Religious Arch-Bishops and Bishops they may much more exercise the like over Universities and Colleges since whatever power they or their Founders had or have it was never given them by any Statute or any part of the Common Law it being the Kings sole Prerogative to Constitute Coporations or Bodies Politic sole or Aggregate Ecclesiastical or Civil under several and distinct qualifications conditions and trusts and the Universities and Colleges derive their Existence from the Royal bounty of the Prince who made them Corporations Constituted them by the direction of their respective Founders Bodies with Heads and Members to be Governed by such Rules and Statutes as the Founder by the Kings Licence should appoint But it was never certainly Intended that the King by such Grant or Licence should Delegate such Authority to Founders Visitors or the Members of Colleges See chap. 4. sect 1. here whereby to injure his Prerogative or determin the Supremacy which the Law of the Land had Annexed to his Imperial Crown as at large I have cleared before That the King is Supreme Head and Visitor in all Ecclesiastical and Civil causes See cap. 4. here hath been fully proved and that from the King all Judges Ecclesiastical and Temporal derive their Authority And sure a Delegation of power from the King can be no Bar or Estople to the King to exert his Prerogative that he thereby can be concluded from Delegating power to others to correct and reform misdemeanors and offences in Communities created by him or his Ancestors or to supervise the Actions and Management of his Judges Ecclesiastical Local Visitors or persons Commissioned by him As to Dr. Thomas Coveneys Case I shall consider it when I come to Treat of Appeals §. 12. Whether Colleges be of Temporal or Spiritual nature ☞ Concerning the Temporal Estates of the Fellows and the profits of the Fellowships being Free-holds that alters not the Case of the Kings power of Visiting for altho' it is disputed by Learned Authors whether Colleges be of a Lay or Spiritual nature yet it is most clear that they have undergone Visitations the reason of which is because they are the Nurseries of Learning and Piety Qualifications of great Moment to the well-being of Government and consequently require the Princes special care since upon the purity or impurity of these Fountains much good or bad must be derived to the Sovereign and Subject And altho' in the Universities some Studies relate not at all to Divinity as Civil Law Physic c. yet the Body of the Students
remedy had been at Common Law only It were easie to quote the resolutions of several Judges Savil's Reports fol. 83.105 that no Appeals lye to any but the King in person from a Sentence of the Kings Commissioners in Ecclesiastical causes so Baron Savile affirms that no Appeal doth lye from a Sentence in the High Commission Court and that the high Commission Court is not within the meaning of the Statute of the 25 of H. 8. but the Opinion of my Lord Dyer or others do not exclude an Appeal to the King in person Dyer's Reports for 42. who is the Fountain of Justice and all the Statutes of King Henry the 8th and Queen Elizabeth as to the Erecting of Courts and granting Jurisdiction do only remit and restore the King to his Ancient Jurisdiction of Visiting and Reforming abuses recieving Appeals and other Judicial Acts as Supreme Head and Ordinary as Serjant Dacres observes §. 15. The Case of Charles Cottington Esq about Appeals I shall now Instance in a case of later date wherein there being an Appeal made to the House of Lords against a Decree of the Delegates the Lords dismissed it as not coming properly before them ☞ The case was this Ex Autographo In the Custody of the Clerk of the Parliament Charles Cottington Esq exhibited his Petition May the 10. 1678. to the Lords shewing that in the Year 1677. he Travailing into Foreign parts unfortunately fell into acquaintance with one Angela Margareta Gallina Daughter to a broken Gold-smith in Turin in the Dukedom of Savoy The Petition of Mr. Cottington and was contracted to her in the presence of a Romish Priest in Turin that afterwards he found her a vicious person Married to one Frichinone Patrimoniale upon which Information he left her and returned for England Then he sets forth that this Gallina came to England and claimed to be the Petitioners Wife that he had cited her before the Dean of the Arches in a cause de jactitatione Matrimonii and she alleged that before the contract with the Petitioner she was Divorced from Patrimoniale and the Divorce was pronounced by the Arch-Bishop of Turin and that tho' he made it appear that the Sentence was Collusory and in it self void and not to be regarded in England yet the Judge of the Arches had Sentenced the said Gallina to be the Petitioners Wife Then follows the premises so highly concerning your Petitioner both to the peril of his Conscience Honor Body and Estate and concerning this his Majesties Kingdom in the Establishing a Foreign Jurisdiction against the Laws of the Kingdom Your Petitioner humbly Appealeth in the premisses to this High and Honorable Court and humbly prayeth that the said Sentence of the said Dean of the Arches and Commissioners Delegates may be reversed This was referred to the Committee of privileges Referred to the Committee of privileges June the 6th it was ordered that Presidents and Records should be brought and Council to be heard June the 12th The Earl of Essex's Report from that Committee The Earl of Essex made report from the Committee that upon full hearing what was alleged by Council on both sides and upon perusal of several Presidents they are of Opinion that the said Appeal did not come properly before them the Earl of Shaftsbury only dissenting as by his Subscription appears The Order is entred in these words Die Lunae 17 o. Junii 1678. According to the Order of the 12th of this Instant June The House of Lords Order upon it the House took into consideration the Report from the Committee of privileges concerning the Appeal of Charles Cottington Esq from the Commissioners Delegates whether the said Appeals be properly brought before this House The Opinion of the Committee being that the said Appeal did not properly come before this House The Opinion of the Committee being that the said Appeal did not properly come before this House After debate and consideration of Presidents the Question being put Whither to agree with this Committee in the Report It was resolved in the Affirmative and it is thereupon Ordered that the Petition and Appeal of the said Charles Cottington be dismissed the House of Peers It is to be considered in this matter Considerations upon this Case that after the Sentence in favor of this Gallina by the Delegates Mr. Cottington Petitioned the King in person for a review or dis-annulling the Decree which the King refused to grant and upon that the Petitioner Addressed himself to the Lords whose Order I have recited and tho' it be not expressed in the same Order why the matter was not properly brought before their Lordships yet it is well known that the cause was by reason that Appeals in Ecclesiastical causes do not lye before their Lordships If I could have procured the Printed Case I might have enlarged upon this matter and if it be my good fortune to meet with it before the Publication hereof I shall take notice of what may be material in the Appendix §. 16. The Ninth Objection that matter of Fact proves not right It is Ninthly Objected that tho' it be allowed that the Kings of England have sometimes dispensed with College Statutes and done those things I have all along Instanced in yet that proves not the Right or Justice of the thing since à facto ad jus non valet consequentia To this I Answer The Answer there is a vast dis-proportion betwixt the Acts of Kings and of Subjects Constant and un-interrupted usage are the Foundations of the Customs of England which are Incorporated into the Common Law of the Land and so many Rights are determined for private persons But in the Orders of the Sovereign one declaration of his pleasure by Mandate in several Cases is sufficient Precedent tho' but rarely made use of upon the presumption in Law that such Acts of Kings are not without deliberate consultation However the constant practice of the Kings of England which I hope I have fully proved takes away all colour for this Argument And it is most certain if the Kings dispensing power with Statutes and putting in Heads of Colleges Fellows c. by Mandates If the Kings Prerogative in this Case had been against Law it would have been questioned at some time had been against the Law we should at some time or other heard of Actions brought before the Judges against the Kings Authority in that matter and found determinations upon them in favor of the aggrieved which I think is not to be found But the Kings of England have been in Possession of this Prerogative in all Ages The King in Possession of this Prerogative tho' most conspicuously since the Reformation and so this Prerogative must be adjudged to appertain to the King till by some Legal Tryal it shall be determined otherwise It may be upon this Topick rationally urged that tho' the Kings dispensing power in other matters be in
the Law Books only made out in some particular Cases yet those sufficiently prove that the Original Prerogative of Dispensation being in the King The Original Prerogative of dispensing in the King. it may branch it self to all such matters as the King pleaseth to apply it to which by no particular Act he or his Predecessors as far as they can oblige him have debarred themselves from the exercise of and the continual Series of this dispensing sometime in one other times in a fresh matter is sufficient evidence that our Kings have not given up this Prerogative wholly Thus I have gone through the most material Objections I have met with in the Vindication of the dis-obedience of the Fellows As to the punishments inflicted upon them for it I suppose none will question but they are according to Rules of Law upon supposal the Crimes were clearly proved I should now have closed this Discourse but that I am obliged for the Reasons given in the Preface to add some things that came not soon enough to my Hands A Transition to what is to be Treated of in the Appendix or went too soon out of them which I shall digest into Order of time and put them in this following Appendix AN APPENDIX §. 1. A Mandate for Re-placing a Graduate Expelled HAving been necessitated for the Reasons foregoing to make these Additions I must desire the Courteous Reader to refer them to their proper places noted in the Margent I shall begin with this following Mandate for Replacing a Graduate Expelled out of the University of Oxford in these words Clause 40 E. 3. part 2. M. 8. rot 10. è Ms. D. Hales in Bibliotheca Societatis Lincolniensis lib. B. fol. 180. Rex dilectis in Christo Cancellario Magistris Regentibus Oxonii salutem Supplicaverunt nobis venerabilis in Christo Pater R. Dei Gratia London Episcopus Tho. Russel Prior Provincialis Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum in Anglia ut cum Johannes de Wulsington Baccalaureus in Theologia confrater praedicti Prioris ad suggestionem procurationem quorundam inimicorum suorum extra Universitatem praedictam maliciose sine causa rationabili Bannitus extitit in ipsius Johannis grave dampnum susceptionem Altioris gradus in eadem facultate quod volumus ipsum Johannem ad Statum suum pristinum restitui jubere Nos supplicationi praedictae favorabiliter Annuentes vobis Mandamus quod ipsum Johannem ad praedictam Universitatem Statum gradum quibus steterit prius in eadem sine difficultate aliqua Admittatis reconciliatis ipsum sic Admissum reconciliatum omnino quae ad facultatem dictam quous que ad Statum Altiorem juxta Statuta Universitatis illius promotus fuerit facere exercere permittatis ne ob ullum defectum ipsum à potestate nostra deduci reconciliari â—aciamus Teste Rege apud Westm 18 die Nov. In English thus The King to the Well-beloved in Christ the Chancellor and Regent Masters in Oxford Greeting See chap. 4. sect 3. §. 1. pag. 176. and pag. 270. The venerable Father in Christ Ralph by Gods Grace Bishop of London and Tho. Russel Prior Provincial of the Order of the Fryers Preachers in England that whereas John de Wulsington Bachellor in Divinity confrere with the said Prior by the suggestion and provocation of certain his Enemies maliciously and without reasonable cause was Expelled the same University to the great damage of the said John and the hindring of his recieving an higher Degree in the said faculty and that we would Command the said John to be restored to his former State. We favorably allowing the foresaid Petition Command you without any difficulty to Admit and reconcile or restore the said John to the same University and to the State and Degree in which he stood before in the same and that you permit him so Admitted and Reconciled or restored in all things to do and exercise what appertains to the said faculty until he be promoted to an higher State according to the Statutes of the University lest for any defect you make us bring back and restore the said John by our power or Authority Witness the King at Westminster the 18th day of November This being the oldest Mandate I have met with I thought it needful to insert it at length that all might know what Authority the King exercised in that Age. §. 2. Inferences from this Record By this Record it is manifest that the King by Mandate could restore a Graduate who had been Expelled the University and by parity of reason he must have the same Right to place any in the University according to his Royal pleasure and whereas by this Expulsion there was a Suspension of his Degree the King Capacitates him to receive it when the time required by the Statutes of the University was expired altho' he was thus dis-enabled So that in this one precept four particulars of the Kings Prerogative over the University are Asserted expresly The prerogative of the King over the University cleared in four particulars by this Mandate which in the foregoing parts of this Treatise I have by other Instances cleared viz. First that the King is Supreme Visitor to alter at his pleasure the Sentences Decrees or determinations of the University Secondly that tho' the University by their Statutes might stop a Graduate from taking an higher Degree yet the King at his pleasure might restore him to his Pristin State and make him capable of receiving his Degrees at the time limited by the Statutes Thirdly that the King did this without any formal proceedings at Law but by his own Sovereign Authority and pleasure only declared in a Mandate Fourthly that if the Chancellor did refuse to obey the Mandate the King threatens to have his pleasure fulfilled by his Royal power §. 3. The King Founder of Colleges That the King by his Royal Authority Constituted made and Erected Colleges pat 14 E. 3. part 3. M. 9. appears by the following Clause of King Edward the Thirds Charter to Queens College in Oxford in these words Memoratam Aulam cum Praeposito caeteris Sociis per Electionem in futurum habitantibus morantibus in eadem quos ad verum Collegium erigimus existere ex nunc proponimus ut Collegium Licitum approbatum agnoscimus Authoritate nostra plena qua possimus ratificamus confirmamus c. This is Dated 18 January Anno 1340. Granted to Robert Eglesfield of Cumberland Bachellor of Divinity Chaplain to Philippa Queen Consort to King Edward the Third and Rector of Burgh under Stanemore being descended of an Ancient Family in that County and in this Charter the King Grants him liberty to Found it and Endow it with Lands and to appoint the Orders of the Government of it as at large may be seen in the Tower of London and a considerable part of it in Lib. 2. fol. 113. Mr.
Woods Antiquities of Oxford to which I refer the Reader That the Kings of England had reserved to themselves power of Visiting and Reforming Abbies Priories Hospitals and Religious Colleges and Houses is not to be doubted I shall only give an account of a Mandate of King Edward the Third concerning an Amercement relaxed the Case was this The Prior of St. Swithins being absent from his Convent a longer time than the Statutes allowed The Kings Mandate for taking off an Amercement from the Prior of St. Swithins Rot. Claus 20 E. 3. part 3. M. 7. è D. Hales ut supra was Amerced by the Chapter of the Priory But the King sends his Mandate to the Chapter Commanding them to discharge the Amercement Imposed by them upon the Prior who had been in his Service and was under his Protection which was ordered accordingly From which we may learn that the King hath a Supreme power over such Societies and so likewise over Colleges to remit Penalties and consquently must have power to inflict them upon Offenders I shall give one Precedent more concerning the Kings power to enjoyn obedience of the Head and Fellows of a College to submit to a Local Visitor The Kings Mandate to enjoyn the Provost and Members of Queens College in Oxford to submit to the Visitation of the Arch-Bishop of York their Local Visitor where the Plea against him probably was an Exemption granted them by the Pope the Case was this The Provost and Scholars of Queens College in Oxford by their Statutes were to be under the Visitation of the Arch-Bishop of York or his Commissary See here chap. 4. §. 2. §. 12. pag. 175. and it seems they refused to submit to the Visitation of Alexander Nevil Arch Bishop of York whereupon the King Commands them to obey him as may be seen in the Mandate at large Rot. Claus 50 E. 3. par 2. M. 9. e Ms D. Hales ut supra I shall only note the last Clause viz. Quod si in vobis Rebellio vel defectus in hac parte reperitur vos qui Regii Mandati contemptores Rebelles eritis taliter puniri faciamus quod punitio vestra aliis omnibus cedet perennem in Terrorem consimilia post modum praesumentibus T. Rege apud Westmonast 18. Nov. The English of which is Nota that disobedience to the Kings Mandate is Styled Rebellion that for certain they shall know if in them be found Rebellion so it seems dis-obedience to the Kings Mandate is Styled which ought to be noted well by such as obstinately refuse obedience to it or defective in that particular See chap. 4. sect 3. ◠6. pag. 187. the King will cause them to be so punished that their punishment shall be to the lasting Terror of those who shall presume hereafter to do the like I shall now Insert a determination of the Bishop of Ely as Local Visitor about the Interpretation of some Statutes of St. Johns College in Cambridge as followeth §. 4. The Interpretation of a Statute of St. Johns College in Cambridge by the Bishop of Ely their Visitor Cum in Injunctionibus per Visitatores Regios vestro Collegio jam diu editis Paper-Office at Whitehall praescriptis positum sit ut in Electionibus quibuscunque ille Electus habeatur quem sex seniores etiam dissentiente repugnante Magistro eligendum duxerint Jam vero postea aliae Ordinationes Statuta vobis ab ipsa Reginea Majestate nuper Imposita sunt his verbis Ut in omnibus singulis Electionibus Locationibus Concessionibus quibuscunque Magistri seu Praepositi illius Collegii Assensus consensus necessario requirendus est quoniam posteriora tollunt Priora meo Judicio Interpretatione posterius hoc Statutum Regium valere magis debet ita tamen ut pro modo ratione omnium singulorum Officiariorum referendi omnino estis ad formam illam discriptam in Statuto de Electione praesidis ad Injunctionem in Margine ejusdem Statuti per Regios Visitatores editam Haec demum mea Interpretatio Sententia est Richard Ely. This was Richard Cox Consecrated Bishop of Ely 21 December Anno 1559. who continued Bishop Twenty one Years After whose Death the See was Vacant about Twenty Years as appears by Godwins Catalogue of Bishops Whereby we may Obiter note that it is no new thing for Bishoprics to be kept long in the Kings Hands un-disposed of From this Interpretation of the Local Visitor Observations upon this Interpretation of the Local Visitor it may first be observed that the Visitors appointed by the Queen did publish Injunctions about Elections by the powers given them from the Queen yet after the Queen did her self impose upon the College new Ordinances and Statutes Secondly that the Bishop judgeth that the later Statutes made void the former and so adheres to the observation of the last From hence Thirdly it is most rational to observe that the Kings of England having power to change Statutes either by themselves in their Closets or by their Commissioners as it is manifest the Queen in this Case did then it much more follows that the Kings of England may by dispensation supersede the execution of any Statute Fourthly it is clear that the Local Visitor by his Interpretation may decide a Controversie in a College whether the Society stand obliged to observe the old or new Statutes and if the Local Visitor hath such a power much more may a King of England exercise the like I now pass to some things more immediately relating to St. Mary Magdalen College §. 5. Extracts of some Statutes Having after long Sollicitation obtained by the help of Mr. Thomas Fairfax See pag. 17. here and pa. 18.23 24 33. a Transcript of some Branches of the Statutes made by Bishop Waynfleet out of the Register E. I shall here Insert them that the Judicious Reader may see that notwithstanding the Plea so much Insisted upon How the Fellows of St. Mary Magdalen College cannot justifie their adhering to the Literal and Grammatical sence of their Statutes nor that they cannot be dispensed with that the Fellows were obliged by Oath to observe their Statutes in the Literal Grammatical Sense and neither seek nor admit of any dispensation by any Authority whatever yet such Statutes have not been observed by themselves but either by too great strictness of them or some Immemorial dispensation or the pravity of the Ages by-past and current that can endure no restraints these Statutes have been dis-used and grown obsolete yet the Oaths are taken in General to all the Statutes so that the Scholars and Fellows can no ways be free from the guilt of perjury without a Tacit reserved Sence that such are to be understood they Swear to keep as are then of force and use And Admitting such a reserve it may be allowed in the obligation to any other Statute which they bind themselves to observe so long as the Sovereign